SH. VIKESH KUMAR,HARYANA vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), ALWAR, ALWAR

In the result, Ground No. 1

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

TDS amounting to Rs. 42,504/-. In view of these facts and considering the provisions as contained in section 249(4

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

Section 80IA(8), the word "OR" is missing in provisions of Section 80A(6) of the ACIT vs. Shree Cement Ltd. Act. It is noted that as per provisions of Section 80A(6), if any goods or services whether sold or acquired falls within the category specified domestic transactions of Section 92BA then in such case it is mandatory

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

Section 80IA(8), the word "OR" is missing in provisions of Section 80A(6) of the ACIT vs. Shree Cement Ltd. Act. It is noted that as per provisions of Section 80A(6), if any goods or services whether sold or acquired falls within the category specified domestic transactions of Section 92BA then in such case it is mandatory

CHAMBAL FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA GADEPAN vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SAVINA-UDAIPUR

249 (SC)\n": "It is now well accepted that this Chapter is a complete code in\nitself providing for self-contained machinery for assessment of undisclosed\nincome for the block period of 10 years or 6 years, as the case may be.\nIn case of regular assessments for which returns are filed on yearly\nbasis, section 4

ASSOCIATED SOAPSTONE DISTRIBUTING CO PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

TDS under section 201(1A)\nwas to be allowed as deduction - Held, yes [Paras 5 and 6] [In favour of\nassessee]...”\n2.5. Thus, in view of the decisions set out hereinbefore, allowability of such interest\nexpense was one of the plausible views which was adopted by NFAC.\n2.6. It is a settled proposition that once a plausible view is adopted

ZILA PARISHAD,BARAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

TDS Rs.1,93,752/-respectively. The AO observed that no tax had been deducted on such payments under section 194A and 194C respectively. The AO issued a showcase notice to the Appellant on 23/05/2019 under section 201(1)/201(1A). 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld CIT(A) and his relevant findings

SMT. SANYA SURENDRA MEHTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-6(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं. / ITA No. 1523/JP/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष / AssessmentYear : 2013-14 Smt. Sanya Surendra Mehta 301, Swadeshi Apartment, D-37-38 Shanti Path, Patrakar Colony, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur बनाम The ITO Ward - 6(1) Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: ABMPM 0118 L अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri P.C. Parwal, CA राजस्व की ओरसे /Revenue by: Shri Gautam Singh Cho

4) of Section 249 of the Act. 5. Since the appellant has not filed return of incomeas well as not paid an amount equal to the amount of advance tax which was payable by it, present appeal is not liable to be admitted. The appeal is infurcutous and, therefore, is dismissed. 6. The appeal is dismissed.’’ 2.4 During the course

SH. JAGTAR SINGH,ALWAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, ALWAR, ALWAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

4. DECISION: 4.1 I have gone through the facts of the case. As per the provisions of section 249(3) of the Act, there should be sufficient cause for the appellant for not presenting the appeal within the time allowed. The relevant provisions read as under:- "The CIT(A) may admit an appeal after the expiration of the said period

STAR DEVELOPERS,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD - 1(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

TDS while passing an intimation order u/s. 143(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961.’’ 2.1 At the outset of hearing of the appeal, the Bench noticed that there is delay of 11 days in filing the appeal by the assessee for which the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay with following prayer. ‘’1. That assessee-firm filed

ISYS SOFTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. CIT (A), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

4) CMA CGM Agencies India (P) Ltd. Vs. Dy CIT (2020) 203 TTJ (Pune) 249: Royalty and fee for technical services- payment made by the assessee to French company for use of software and maintenance charges neither constituted royalty nor fees for technical services hence not taxable in India and not disallowable u/s. 40(a)(i) for non-deduction

BANK OF INDIA,JAIPUR vs. ADDL.CIT(TDS), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: The Bench. However, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay With Following Prayer. ‘’’…It Is To Submit That The Cit(A) Order Was Passed On 26-10-2022 & Was Issued On The E-Mail Of The Bank. It Did Not Come To The Notice As The Bank System Marked The E-Mail As Spam Mail & Transferred The Same To Spam Folder. On Being Aware, We Requested For True & Certified Copy Of The Order & Received True & Certified Copy Of The Order On 06-04-2024 & Submitted Appeal Before Your Goodself On 31-05-2024 At Online Portal.

249(3) of the IT Act, 1961 and do not constitute ‘’sufficient cause’’ as per this section as well as section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. In view of these facts and circumstances, it is held that the inordinate delay in filing of this appeal is merely on account of negligent or sheer carelessness on part of the appellant

AO (SC), AVVNL, SIKAR,SIKAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC (TDS), GHAJIABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Section 249(2), the appeal has to be presented within 30 days of date of service of notice of 7 AO(SC) AVVNL, Sikar Vs ACIT, CPC (TDS) demand. The appellant has not filed the appeal within the period specified u/s 249(2). There is an inordinate delay in filing the appeal . The appeal in his written submission has contended

ZILA PARISHAD,BARAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

section 249(2). The ld. A/R placing reliance on various decisions of Hon’ble High Courts and the decision of Jaipur Bench of the Tribunal, prayed that the appeal of the assessee be restored back to the file of Assessing Officer after 4 Zila Parishad, Baran. condoning the delay as assessee has in possession of necessary certificates which

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. RDB CARS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

TDS is disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia) of the I.T. Act 1961 and added to the returned income of the assessee.’’ 2.2 Aggrieved, from the said order of assessment, the assessee has filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who after hearing the contention of the assessee allowed the appeal of the assessee by observing as under:- “4. Decision

BHAGWATIKRIPA PAPER MILLS PVT LTD,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6,, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

section 194H on commission of Rs.57,38,074/-. However, it is to be noted that the assessee has claimed only commission on sale of Rs.52,35,406/-. The difference in amount of Rs. 5,02,668/-remains unexplained. 4 Bhagwatipripa Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd. Notices dated 09.03.2022 and 10.03.2022 were issued, whereby, assessee was asked to furnish explanation

BIKANER DISTRIBUTORS P.LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

TDS as per provisions of Section 43B on account of non-submission of challan. 7. Rs.1,67,855/-. The ld. AO erred in law as well as on the facts of the present case in disallowing Entry Tax as per provisions of Section 43B on account of non-deposit of Entry tax. 8. The appellant prays your Honor’s indulgence

BIKANER DISTRIBUTORS P.LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

TDS as per provisions of Section 43B on account of non-submission of challan. 7. Rs.1,67,855/-. The ld. AO erred in law as well as on the facts of the present case in disallowing Entry Tax as per provisions of Section 43B on account of non-deposit of Entry tax. 8. The appellant prays your Honor’s indulgence

CREATIVE REALMART PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(5), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

section\n68, with respect to the share application monies received by an\nassessee.\n9.6 It would thus appear that the appellant is not really right in\napproaching on the basis as if the onus is on the Assessing Officer to\nprove the alleged money laundering racket an onus that may perhaps\nbe relevant only when the money laundering racket